Andy Gray's raging ignorance: Ita - Ned (R)

wait..t.here was a defender off the field? haha im an italy fan and i didnt even see it. nevermind my screaming at the television

 

I believe after the game, when they got the explaination from the refs (or somebody who knew), Tommy Smyth agreed with the call. However Julie Foudy still thought it was wrong.

 

Well it's still a hard-decision to make since you have to decide whether the player is active or inactive, I'm not sure what the rule is in a case like this where the player has fallen injured in the run of play, and more-so has ended up collapsed outside the field of play. As far as I see it, I would consider him inactive, but I don't know the full rules regarding this.

 

Since we seem to be in the middle of the arrogance society amongst some of the posters here lets quote the ATR and see how the posters here back up the call made.

Now there seems to be a lot of posters here who assume that anyone who does not count the Italian defender as in play is an idiot (or insert your own prefered word). Well as we all do here lets actually interpret what happened. Did the defender return to the field immediatly but did he have a chance to? No he did not so can he really be counted as being in the play? I think it can be debated. No argument can be made if the defender is judged to be in play but his being in play can be at least be debated.


I think then we need to stop blasting Foudy (as much as that pains me) and Andy Gray.

 

I watched the post-game coverage of this play and was appalled that Julie Foudy thought that it was a bad call...and my Tarheel connection isn't going to let me give her any benefit of the doubt here....shawn's opinion above notwithstanding.

 

Read ATR 11.11-

Brief synopsis, unless the defender (or attacker) is off the pitch and receiving medical attention, then they are considered to be present (for the purposes of determining offside) on the nearest touch/goal line. Also, the player can be carded for leaving. In this case, the defender is considered to be on the goal line. No offside. The ignorant protest vociferously while not knowing the LOTG on this point.

Also watch very closely, the defener is not pushed off the pitch. His momentum carried him there, note the attacker is off the pitch before the defender. How can he push another player off the pitch when he isn't on it? As for the defender, he assumed that by staying on the ground behind the goal, it would put an attacker in an offside position. Guess he didn't know the LOTG either. Kudos to the officials to knowing the LOTG and having the stones to apply them regardless of what the anybody thinks about it.

 

I was positive that the ref & assistant had got it right & the reasons for the decision, but I couldn't find anything in the Rules of the Game to back me up. Not one of the 20 people I was watching the game with believed me & most wouldn't even consider that it was anything but offside. They probably wouldn't change their minds even with the rule in front of them.

 

I think you're misreading the ATR or reading something into it.

Did he leave the field in the course of play? YES.
Did he immediately return? NO.

There is nothing there about the defender being "in play." Considerations of a player being involved in play or not involved in play are only made in the case of an attacker who was in an offside position when the ball was played.

 

This is maybe the most accurate point made in this discussion so far.

 

I will quote, not paraphrase, ATR 11.11 as I did above and lets try again:

Where did he have a chance to return to the field of play before the goal???

You imply the defender was lying there for an extended period of time on purpose. He never had a chance to return to the field of play.

This is not as cut and dried as you suggest. There is room for discussion. I am not saying the call is wrong or right but I want to discuss it. We have the benefit of time to hash this out unlike the CR and the AR.

I quoted it above. No reading into it.
Page 37 of this pdf: http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advice Final Aug2007.pdf

 

Great Call.

 

Without knowing for sure, I am POSITIVE that there was some sort of communication between the CR and AR about the play...remember they have the little radios in their ear so they could have discussed it at length without the TV audience knowing about it...that being said, a bit of eye contact would have achieved the same thing.

Not that I'm trying to end the discussion about this....

 

the ESPN talking heads are tools. And I had a lot of respect for Andy Gray.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

I agree that a brief conversation could have been had. I will be honest I forgot about the radios. I was talking about a longer more in depth discussion that we can have here.

 

Sure...and if you're looking for in-depth analysis, this is definitely the place for it...just wait till PVancouver gets home....

My initial impression on seeing the play was that it was a good goal and that the keeper's, attacker's AND defender's attempt to get the first far-post serve carried all of them off the FOP...the attacker and keeper immediately returned while the defender went down and stayed down. Barring a horrible injury needing IMMEDIATE attention, I believe the referee was correct to allow play to continue. If I were the ref (dreaming...) I would have stopped play immediately had I seen gushing blood or the potential for a serious neck injury BUT that wasn't the case so (again, my opinion) the ref was correct to allow play to continue.

From there it is an easy interpretation of the LOTG for both the CR and AR...and I don't believe much communication was necessary for them to have made the right call...like I've said before here and elsewhere, a little bit of eye contact between the CR and his ARs could cover volumes of spoken words.

 

I just watched it on Tivo and was yelling at the TV commentator...what an idiot. Player was off the field, doing his usual Italian flopping and he got nailed for it. Great call all around, and once again, it just goes to show you that a prerequisit for soccer players is NOT a knowledge of the rules.

 

The mere fact that there is so much discussion about this shows that the rule is open to interpretation. It's not cut and dry. The match officials interpreted it one way and I respect their decision. The officials could have called it offside and that would have been accepted, the game would have continued and we'd all be having this exact same discussion.

This situation needs to be addressed further in the rule book and I'm curious to see how FIFA tweaks it.

 

The only reason there is any discussion is because of the stupidity of the commentators.

 

I agree that the Italian team is known for flopping, diving, embelleshing..whatever you wanna call it but I don't think that's what Panucci did in this instance.

As for players knowledge of the rules...it goes both ways. Just look at RvN's reaction after the goal. Even he thought he was going to get called offside.

It's obvious you don't like the Italian team...I just think it's a shame that you let your dislike for them enter into the equation when trying to determine if the right call was made. You immediately lose credibility the minute you slag one of the teams. Sorry bud

 

OK then. Where did you get the part about having a chance to return to the field or about the player being in play?

If you can't show it to me in writing then I say you read it into the ATR or the LOTG.

 

That's funny. Gray called some of the EPL refs he knows and they did not see this as cut and dried.

The defender did not have the chance to return to the field of play immediately. There is room for interpreptation.

The arrogance around here is baffling me.

In determining means judgement, not black and white.

I the same place that alive or dead which has been quoted here sevral times already in this thread.


im·me·di·ate·ly [i-mee-dee-it-lee] Pronunciation Key - –adverb 1. without lapse of time; without delay; instantly; at once: Please telephone him immediately.